by Steve | Sep 29, 2021 | In the News
General Conference 2012. Photo by Steve Beard.
By Thomas Lambrecht –
More concerns have been raised recently about the possibility of having a normal, in-person General Conference in August 2022. The sluggish vaccination process in Africa (I am not sure about the Philippines) means that many delegates have not yet been vaccinated. Vaccination is likely to be required for entry into the U.S. The visa process for people traveling to the U.S. is not operating well right now. These considerations mean that if the decision had to be made today, General Conference could not meet in person.
Of course, there are four to six months remaining before the Commission on the General Conference needs to make its decision about holding General Conference. We are praying that vaccinations will ramp up in the developing world, and we are encouraging delegates to be vaccinated as soon as possible. (In many countries, it is first come, first served, without any specific plan for different population groups.) As we have seen with this virus, a lot can change in a matter of months.
At the same time, prudence would dictate that other options be considered. The need to get our church “unstuck” means that a General Conference meeting in 2022 is essential. Without it, the chaos and conflict that we currently see in our church is likely to get worse – perhaps much worse.
A Distributed General Conference
The most obvious alternative is what missiologist Dr. David Scott calls a distributed General Conference. “In almost every country, the Internet is accessible somewhere, usually in urban areas and/or hotels and conference centers that cater to global business travelers and NGOs” writes Scott. “Thus, for delegates from such countries to participate in an online General Conference would probably mean gathering these delegates at a central point or central points, where they could then access the meeting through the reliable internet of whatever facility in which they were meeting.”
In Africa, delegates could meet in central conference groupings, meaning three central locations with hotel accommodations and good Internet. The Filipino delegates could all meet together in one location. European delegates could meet either in one location for all or as three separate central conference groups. U.S. delegates could meet in Minneapolis, thus honoring most of the contracts already signed, or they could meet in five different jurisdictional groups in different locations. Meeting in these smaller groups, rather than as part of an 872-person body, might also have the advantage of increasing delegate participation in the discussion and decision-making.
In a UM News Service article, Bishops Cynthia Fierro Harvey, Ken Carter, and Bruce Ough are on record supporting this option. A number of African delegates are also quoted favoring a virtual/distributed General Conference. A recent ABC News article reported conventions are returning, both in in-person and hybrid form, featuring tens of thousands of participants. Multi-national corporations and other denominations are successfully pursuing virtual and hybrid meetings.
A distributed General Conference could be planned and proposed by the Commission on the General Conference. The Commission would have to flesh out new rules and procedures for an online session that did not use legislative committees to accomplish its work. As in 2019, the General Conference would operate as a legislative committee of the whole. The Commission could propose a limited agenda: all proposals related to structural change or separation of the church (including both the Protocol for Separation and the Christmas Covenant), the quadrennial budget, crucial elections, and any other matters that demand urgent attention. The Conference could then vote to refer all other petitions to the 2024 session of the General Conference, satisfying the requirement that all proposed legislation be voted on by a legislative committee.
Alternatively, the Council of Bishops could call a special General Conference with the same limited agenda outlined above. The Conference could deal with those matters, and all other legislation would be postponed until 2024.
Obstacles to a Distributed General Conference
The biggest obstacle is trust. Even when all the delegates are in one room, there are questions about how delegates vote, whether the right delegates are seated, and whether manipulative tactics are being used. That mistrust can only be multiplied when the delegates are split between six to twelve different venues. Having a limited agenda will help, as there would be fewer controversial proposals and it would simplify the overall process. The best help to overcoming trust issues would be to have a team of neutral observers trained and deputized by the Commission on the General Conference to monitor the process, ensure that delegate credentials are correct and call attention of the staff to any problems.
A second obstacle is how to devise a process that is fair and equitable. Splitting up the conference delegates might actually help address this. Parts of the conference session could be plenary sessions online, with video presentations giving common information that all could watch. Other parts of the schedule could be processed in each venue, allowing for discussion and identifying questions that could then be raised in the next plenary. During plenary sessions, speakers could be recognized alternately from each venue, so that all venues have an equal chance to participate in the plenary discussion. Rules could ensure that all venues have a chance to be recognized before any cutoff of debate. Proposed amendments could be first lifted up in a venue and, only if passed by that venue, then raised in the plenary. This would help whittle down the possible number of amendments that the plenary would have to consider.
A third obstacle is how the voting would take place. Secret ballot voting is essential to curtail the potential for voter intimidation. This could be accomplished by giving each delegate a voting device, just like in a normal General Conference. The votes could be tabulated in each venue and reported to the plenary. Or each delegate could be given Internet access and the ability to cast a ballot through a unique ID code, similar to how many annual conferences have voted during virtual sessions.
A fourth obstacle is the fact that our current General Conference rules do not allow for a virtual or distributed meeting. David Livingston, a Great Plains delegate, worries that the Judicial Council would “rule that the session met illegally and all votes will be thrown out.” However, this is the same problem that annual conferences faced when they moved to virtual meetings. None of them had rules allowing virtual meetings. The simple solution is that the rules are the first item of business, and the revised rules adopted at the beginning of the session can allow for virtual/distributed sessions. In fact, those rules would need to outline the whole process of how the conference would be conducted. Once they are adopted, the session is legal. Otherwise, no annual conference virtual session held over the last 18 months was legal!
A fifth obstacle is the time difference between venues. By scheduling plenary sessions during four- to six-hour blocks during the day, they can occur when delegates are most available. Meetings of the various venue groups could occur at other times of the day when it fits the time of each venue. It will also require some sacrifices on the part of delegates to rise early or stay up late in order to meet. African and Filipino delegates regularly endure 24-hour journeys to get to General Conference and have to adjust to seven-hour time changes (as do Europeans). Such time changes would not be encountered in a distributed General Conference. Rising early or staying late by a few extra hours is not an insurmountable challenge.
A sixth obstacle might be cost. However, the cost of flying delegates to Minneapolis from overseas could be saved and the money applied to the less expensive travel to the various venues. Hotel accommodations at each of the venues would be no more than what was budgeted for Minneapolis. There would likely be some cost savings, which could be used to cover the cost of the technology and for the neutral observer teams.
An old saying reminds us, “Where there is a will, there is a way.” While difficult, the challenges can be overcome with smart planning and a cooperative spirit. The failure to do a distributed General Conference would be because there is insufficient will to do so by our leaders.
As the UM News Service article reports, “Virtual platforms ‘are becoming part of our daily bread,’ said Bishop Cynthia Fierro Harvey, the current Council of Bishops president and leader of the Louisiana Conference. ‘With the proper preparation and training, I believe a General Conference could be held virtually,’ Harvey said. ‘There are new technological developments every day that could make traversing the globe, languages and time zones possible.’”
by Steve | Sep 20, 2021 | Magazine, Magazine Articles, September/October 2021
By B.J. Funk –
Maybe some of you remember the Andy Griffith show, and if so, you likely remember Otis. Otis had a drinking problem, and whenever he had too much, he came to the Sheriff’s office, went into one of the two cells and slept it off. In fact, he came so often that he knew where the key was. Andy allowed Otis to unlock one of the cells anytime he needed and go on in, even if Andy wasn’t there.
One day, a letter came to the sheriff’s office addressed to Otis. Barney was incredulous! “Andy, why is Otis’ sister-in-law writing him here? This is not Otis’ address!” The two officers woke Otis and questioned him. The letter stated that she and his brother were coming to Mayberry to visit Otis and his wife – that very day!
Otis confessed. One time, when Andy and Barney were out of the office, Otis took a sheet of paper from Andy’s desk and wrote his brother. In the letter, Otis led his brother to think that Otis was now a deputy, working for Sheriff Taylor. Barney was furious! But Andy listened as Otis explained his reasoning.
Otis answered sheepishly, “I know it wasn’t right for me to do that, Andy, but I don’t know, I’ve always been the black sheep of the family, and it just felt good to change colors.” Otis’ answer seemed to melt the heart of the kind-hearted sheriff.
Maybe you’ve felt like the black sheep before. At home. At your work or place of business. Everyone else seems to have their act altogether, with their bright, happy colors dancing a joyous jig of self-confidence. Being known as the black sheep places a barbed wire fence around your every effort, immediately canceling any good in you as its piercingly sharp edges cut into your skin.
It’s no fun to live under the heavy dark cloak of sin. Or rejection. Or hidden pain. Or low self-confidence. But, how do we change our colors?
Andy decided to make Otis a deputy for the day – for just one day – the day Otis’ brother would be there. Barney didn’t think Otis should be a deputy, and he came right back at Andy with his strong words of judgment. “Now Andy, you shouldn’t do that!” Barney gave his reasons why Otis should not be made a deputy. He said, “Otis is careless, unreliable, and irresponsible!” To which Andy smiles and responds, “I’m gonna make him a deputy.”
Hear the whine in Barney’s voice. “You’re making the town drunk into a deputy!” In this particular episode, Barney represents the law and Andy represents grace.
In a stern warning about the dangerous way they are currently living, James makes this curious, seemingly out-of-place statement about God: “He gives more grace” (James 4:6). Romans puts an exclamation mark on this thought with “… but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more” (Romans 5:20).
That’s such a strong statement that we want to question if those lines even belong in the Bible. Could it really be true that the God who created you, loved you, and redeemed you will actually measure out his grace gifts to you in proportion to your sins? The more you sin, the more grace he gives? Unbelievable. Only a God like ours.
Listen to Satan’s strong words about your life and mine: He is self-centered, pleasure-seeking, self-indulgent, quarrelsome, spiritually unfaithful, and worldly. You can’t make him a Deputy! That’s us in our dark colors.
Then hear the voice of grace, softly whispering his belief in you: He may be all that, but I’m gonna make him a deputy anyway.
Climb into Otis’ jail cell with him. Wash his feet. Give him clean clothes. Paint his cell in stripes of soothing green and vibrant yellow. Trickle unconditional love in every empty space. Examine Chrysalis Otis as he pushes out the old, spreads his wings, and flies, brilliant splashes of red and purple dancing on his wings.
Watch the Barneys of our world standing on an exalted platform, looking down their noses with disbelief that anything so tainted could become anything so beautiful. But it can. It does. It did. Otis changed colors. You can too.
BJ. Funk is Good News’ long-time devotional columnist and author of It’s A Good Day for Grace.
by Steve | Sep 17, 2021 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter
Segment of Michelangelo’s Creation of Adam (1511). Public domain.
By Thomas Lambrecht-
As Christians, we believe God created the universe. He created it with a certain structure. That structure is reflected in the physical universe – what we call the laws of physics (and biology). He also created the universe with a certain moral and spiritual structure – what we call the moral law or natural law.
When we reject the physical laws of the universe, we suffer consequences. We cannot defy the laws of gravity and survive. The same is true when we reject the moral and spiritual structure that God created. There, too, we suffer consequences.
I would argue that many of the problems in the world today are because we reject the structure of things that God has placed inherently in his created universe.
The Fall
Christians point back to Genesis 3 for the explanation of much that is wrong with the world today. We call it “The Fall.” It was when the first humans, Adam and Eve, chose to reject God’s structure and choose their own way.
God had said, “You must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die” (Genesis 2:17). But the serpent persuaded them with an enticing proposal, “When you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil” (Genesis 3:5).
Adam and Eve wanted to be like God, able to make their own determination about what was good and what was evil. As my pastor pointed out in his sermon on this passage last Sunday, the irony is that Adam and Eve were already like God. They were created in his image. They were made to live forever in fellowship with him. They would have expressed God’s understanding of good and evil by virtue of their continued fellowship with him. But they instead wanted autonomy – to make their own moral framework. In doing so, they rejected God’s structure, the structure that he had placed within all of creation, both morally/spiritually and physically. As a result, the whole structure became warped and spoiled, leading to the experience of sin and evil we witness today.
The Consequences of the Fall
Because Adam and Eve rejected God’s structure, sin and evil permeated the world. No part of the world is untouched by it. No person is untainted by it. This is what we mean by “original sin.” As our Articles of Religion put it, “it is the corruption of the nature of every [person], … whereby [humanity] is very far gone from original righteousness, and of [one’s] own nature inclined to evil, and that continually” (Article VII). We cannot reject the inherent moral/spiritual structure of the universe without consequence.
In the process, Adam and Eve are separated from God, cut off from the daily fellowship that they once enjoyed with him. This is spiritual death, and it is characteristic of all people today.
Adam and Eve were also banished from the Garden of Eden and no longer had access to the tree of life. So they began to physically die. As the generations rolled along, the lifespan of people grew shorter and shorter, until we arrive at the biblical “three score and ten” (Psalm 90:10).
All the sin, evil, death, and spiritual dis-ease we experience is traceable back to the human desire for autonomy from God. We reject the structure of things God has created and end up beating our heads against the brick wall trying establish our own structure in its place.
Manifestations Today
Among many examples, we see this tendency toward human autonomy manifested in our inclination to try to determine on our own when life can begin and when it should end. The U.S. is one of less than a dozen countries in the world that permits abortion up until the time of birth. We ignore the God-given structure that creates new life within a mother’s womb, and we choose to end that life that is made in God’s image.
The reason most abortions are “necessary” is that we have also rejected God’s structure for marriage and family. Waiting for sex within the context and security of marriage is considered ridiculously old-fashioned. Rather than following God’s structure of building a relationship that is finally expressed in marriage and culminated in sex, we opt for pleasure first, relationship and marriage later (if at all). Babies don’t conform to this human-made structure, so unwanted or unplanned pregnancies are terminated, compounding the first rejection of God’s structure by another rejection. This is not to diminish those tragic situations when abortion becomes a medical necessity to save the life of the mother. Even then, however, we are cognizant that we are ending a human life, not removing a blob of cells, and we rightly mourn the loss.
Our desire to be autonomous leads us to contemplate physician-assisted suicide. We want to determine the moment of our own death, especially if we feel we cannot endure living anymore. There are times when people are faced with horrible physical or emotional pain that seems to justify calling an end to the suffering through dying at a time and in a way of our own choosing. We have both a desire and an obligation to extend compassion and mercy to all in those situations. We are compelled to offer help, both medical and psychological, to ease the pain as much as possible. But the answer is not to draw an artificial ending to the gift of life God has given us, violating that life-affirming structure.
We see this tendency toward human autonomy manifested in the attempt to remake gender into a personal and social construct, rather than a God-given gift attached to the physical reality of our bodies. Again, we must be sensitive to the very real psychological distress that some experience in connection with their gender. The answer is not to remake our physical reality to align with our perception of ourselves. Rather, it is to reconnect with the structure of things that God has placed within each person, where body, mind, and spirit align together in a human unity.
Redemption through Christ
Fortunately, God has provided a way out of the morass of human autonomy seeking. He sent his Son Jesus to restore the structure inherent in creation and redeem those caught in the trap of rejecting that structure in favor of their own invention. Coming to Christ for salvation, we voluntarily surrender our own self-will to his lordship. The futile attempts to create our own moral universe and the resulting sin, pain, and harm are forgiven – wiped away in Jesus’ death on the cross. His resurrection reestablishes the deeper logic of the universe under God’s sovereignty. As disciples, our minds and hearts are transformed in keeping with God’s will, not our own (Romans 12:2). Although imperfect in our attempts, we strive to grow in holiness, which is conformity to God’s way. By the power of the Holy Spirit, we are changed on the inside, leading to a change in our thinking and actions, demonstrating our allegiance to God’s kingdom.
This is what it means to be a Christian – not just a walk down the aisle to the alter, but a transformed life of discipleship. That is why it is so disheartening at times to see Christians adopting the world’s value structure, rather than God’s. Our modern society values individual autonomy in the extreme. As a result, each person becomes his/her own arbiter of truth. Rather than submitting ourselves to the revelation of God’s structure as found in Scripture and taught by the Church through the centuries, we deem ourselves competent to override the apostles and prophets of Scripture and honored teachers of the Church.
Yet, we do not rest easy as rulers of our own individual kingdoms and supposed masters of our own fate. We become unfocused and distracted in life, running after all the things our world values instead of the “one needful thing” that Mary discovered at the feet of Jesus (Luke 10:41-42). In the words of professors Jenna Silber Storey and Benjamin Storey (First Things, May 2021, p. 15), “we suffer from something like the pixelated vision of the fly.” We are drawn in so many directions that our lives are sometimes dissipated in fruitless activity.
To be effective as Christian disciples, we find our focus in Jesus Christ, the author and perfecter of our faith (Hebrews 12:2). He is the guide to the purpose and meaning of our lives. In his structure, we find true freedom. We can learn the lesson of submission to something and Someone greater than ourselves, finding our place in the God-given structure of the universe. Finding that place – our place – is the fulfillment of God’s intention for us, bringing him glory and saturating us with joy.
by Steve | Sep 14, 2021 | Magazine, Magazine Articles, September/October 2021
By Max Wilkins –
As The United Methodist Church moves ever closer to the seemingly inevitable adoption of the Protocol for separation and the establishment of the Global Methodist Church (GMC), those of us who remain committed to traditional understandings and expressions of Methodism owe a huge debt of gratitude to the international members of United Methodism outside the United States, particularly in Africa and Asia.
Indeed, were it not for the faithful witness of United Methodist General Conference delegates from what some analysts refer to as the Global South, the UM Church would have long since slid deeper into decline. Yet these vital, traditional, biblically sound Methodist communities did not emerge spontaneously. They are the fruit of thousands of faithful Methodist missionaries of the last 150 years who diligently labored to bring the Christian faith and a Wesleyan witness to their lands.
The missionary movement in Africa has been the focus of great criticism over the last several decades. And much of that criticism is well deserved. The deep ties to colonialism and colonialist practices were both regrettable and deplorable. The melding of the Golden Rule into the reality that “the one who owns the gold makes the rules” was always a perversion of the gospel message and an abuse of power. And many mistakes were made with the best of intentions by men and women who were ill-trained and ill-equipped for cross-cultural work, and often left to their own devices to figure it all out.
While it is important to acknowledge this situation, and to recognize that most of these issues have been successfully addressed in positive ways in the last several decades, it would be an injustice to the sacrifice and dedication of thousands of hard-working sincere missionaries to overlook the value of the work and the fruit of their labors.
The growth of the Christian faith in Africa since 1900 has been nothing short of miraculous. Never before in the 2000-year history of the Church have we witnessed an expansion of this magnitude. In 1900 there were fewer than 9 million Christians on the entire continent of Africa. Methodists on the continent numbered in the thousands. In 2020 the numbers are astounding.
The most recent statistics of the World Methodist Council report the number of Africans professing membership in Methodist movements to be approaching 15 million. Much of that growth is in independent Methodist churches on the continent. For instance, the Methodist Church of Ghana has grown between 40,000 and 50,000 new believers every year for the last decade. Ghana has a population almost equivalent to that of Texas. While it is often said that everything is bigger in Texas, when it comes to explosive church growth, Ghana outshines the Lone Star State.
The growth of United Methodist movements on the continent has been equally impressive. Official statistics show the UM Church in Africa is 5.7 million believers. That amazing growth has taken place alongside the decades long decline in UM Church membership in the United States. Most importantly these UM Church members in continental Africa are almost entirely traditionalist, orthodox, and biblically based in their theology and practice. And much of the leadership of these churches will readily acknowledge that both the growth and the theological integrity of the church in Africa is directly related to the witness and the legacy of those early Methodist missionaries.
Having acknowledged all of that, it is also important to understand that the world has changed dramatically, and the mission has changed along with it. We have moved inexorably over the last three or four decades from a “west to the rest” concept of missions to a “from everywhere to everywhere” practice.
Increasingly the Global South is becoming the heartbeat of mission sending. “The West” has become one of the largest missionary receiving areas of the world. This much-needed change has not been enthusiastically embraced by all corners of the church, however. From the insulting and dismissive comments directed at African General Conference delegates by North American leaders, to the continuing efforts to minimize Global South theological and ecclesiastical voices, and even the growing manipulation of the financial advantages of the U.S. and European churches as a means of coercing cooperation with progressive agendas, there continue to be challenges for some corners of our church to take these Global South leaders seriously. Some correctives are needed. Thankfully, I believe the emerging Global Methodist Church will provide a couple of these correctives.
First, the new denomination will be, from day one, a majority world dominated denomination. And that is by design. It is a near certainty that a substantial percentage of the Global South churches that make up the UM Church currently will ultimately unite with the new Methodist denomination. There are also a number of independent Methodist movements in Latin America and Africa who have begun conversation about aligning with the GMC.
From the moment of its founding conference, the GMC may have far more members from the Global South than from the U.S. And even though I fully expect the GMC to grow rapidly in the U.S. once it is launched, there is no reason to assume that the geometric growth of the church in the Global South will slow any time soon. Thus, it is both inevitable and exciting to consider that the strong voices of teaching and leadership that are helping the church to grow faithfully in the Global South will become leading and respected voices in the new denomination. That will be a huge treasure to the GMC.
Second, I have believed for some time that the time has come for those of us who are leaders in the North American church to lower our voices, at least a bit, and to begin to elevate and promote the voices of Global South church leaders. It is important for books and resources from these women and men to be available throughout the church. Our conferences should regularly feature preaching, teaching, and leadership from these women and men.
I remain grateful that leadership from both the Wesleyan Covenant Association and the emerging GMC have been intentional about seeking and giving voice and decision-making power to many of these very voices. In much the same way that the leadership of African bishops was critical to those who fled the Episcopal Church to form the Anglican Church in North America and other Anglican expressions, it will be essential to those forming the GMC to look to our Global South sisters and brothers for wisdom, counsel, and leadership.
For years, Good News magazine has utilized TMS Global to write its missions column in each issue. We are grateful to have had this opportunity to share our witness and our voice. But we are also extremely excited to announce that with the full enthusiastic blessings of Good News’ editorial leadership we will be using our column in each issue for the foreseeable future to platform some important voices from the Global South.
As we race toward a new day for Methodism, both in the U.S. and globally, we believe that we will all be blessed by the individual and collective wisdom they will bring. I hope you will all look forward to these contributions. May the Lord continue to bless the growth of the Church in Africa, in Latin America, and in Asia. And may that sweet revival spirit make its way back here to the U.S. Lord, hear our prayer.
Max Wilkins is the president and CEO of TMS Global. He is the author of Focusing My Gaze: Beholding the Upward, Inward, Outward Mission of Jesus. To learn more, visit seedbed.com/focusingmygaze and TMS-global.org.
by Steve | Sep 10, 2021 | In the News, Perspective E-Newsletter
What will the future of Methodism look like? This graphic illustrates just a few of the main differences and distinctives anticipated between The United Methodist Church and the Global Methodist Church (in Formation). Links to the primary documents are found in the article below.
By Thomas Lambrecht
What will the proposed new Global Methodist Church look like? How will it operate? In what ways will it be different from what we have been accustomed to in The United Methodist Church?
These questions weigh on the minds of people who are thinking about the option of aligning with the GM Church after the UM Church’s 2022 General Conference adopts the Protocol for Reconciliation and Grace through Separation.
Change is difficult for us human beings! We tend to prefer sticking with what we are used to. Of course, the whole reason for forming the GMC is because we believe there are some crucial changes needed in how the UM Church currently operates.
Forming a new denomination essentially from scratch is a difficult and complex undertaking. Most United Methodists have never read the Book of Discipline, and they trust their pastor, district superintendent, and bishop to know how the church is supposed to run. Therefore, comparing provisions in the UM Church’s 800-page Book of Discipline with the GM Church’s much shorter Transitional Book of Doctrines and Discipline would be a tedious task for most United Methodists.
That is why we have undertaken to produce a comprehensive comparison chart that summarizes the main provisions of the UM Discipline ,the GM Transitional Doctrines and Discipline , and the proposals from the Wesleyan Covenant Association’s draft Book of Doctrines and Discipline. The chart shows how most of the important provisions of church governance are handled in the UM Church compared with how they would be handled in the GM Church.
It is important to keep the three documents clear in our understanding. The Book of Discipline governs how United Methodist conferences and congregations function today. It was adopted by the 2016 General Conference (with a few revisions in 2019) and is the result of an evolutionary process extending back to the very first Discipline in 1808. We do not know what the UM Church’s Book of Discipline will look like after the realignment contemplated by the Protocol is accomplished, but we know that significant changes to the church’s moral teachings have been proposed.
The Transitional Book of Doctrines and Discipline will govern how the GM Church functions from its inception until its convening General Conference meets (an approximately one- to two-year period). It borrows some features from the UM Discipline and some ideas from the WCA’s draft Book of Doctrines and Discipline. It was drafted by a three-person writing team and then amended and approved by the Transitional Leadership Council, which is the governing body for the GM Church from now through the transition until the convening General Conference.
The Transitional Book of Doctrines and Discipline fleshes out in greater detail than the WCA draft book some of the critical elements necessary to have the denomination running. It elaborates transitional provisions that would help individuals, clergy, congregations, and conferences move into the GM Church. However, anything that was not necessary for the transitional period – such as the manner of selecting and appointing bishops – has been left for the convening General Conference to decide.
In order to minimize the amount of change that congregations would experience during the transitional period, the Transitional Leadership Council sought to maintain continuity with the current UM Discipline where it made sense – such as in the appointment process for clergy to churches (although enhanced consultation with congregations will be required). At the same time, some critically important reforms – such as shortening the timeline for candidacy to ordained ministry – were incorporated in the Transitional Book of Doctrines and Discipline as essential elements of the new church and features that would set the direction of the denomination.
Ultimately, the GM Church’s convening General Conference, composed of delegates elected globally from among those who align with the new church, will have the authority to formally adopt a new, more permanent Book of Doctrines and Discipline. It will undoubtedly build as a starting point upon the Transitional Book of Doctrines and Discipline. The WCA’s recommendations and other ideas laity and clergy wish to propose will be considered and potentially adopted by the General Conference. Notably, WCA recommendations not in the transitional book would not take effect unless adopted by the convening General Conference. However, they are an important indicator of the current thinking of denominational leaders.
The comparison chart is meant to be an easy way to compare how the GM Church will function during the transition and give an indication of some of the directions envisioned for its future. The chart may be reproduced and shared freely. Questions and feedback are welcome and can be sent to info@globalmethodist.org.
Some highlights from the chart, specifically referring to the GM Church’s transitional period:
- Doctrine– The doctrinal standards will stay the same, with the addition of the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds, and bishops and clergy will be expected to promote and defend the doctrines of the church.
- Social Issues– Church statements would require a 75 percent vote and would be binding on clergy and congregations (which implies there will be fewer and more general statements). Social witness in the Transitional Book of Doctrines and Discipline is two pages, compared with over 930 pages in the UM Discipline and Book of Resolutions.
- Local Church Membership Categories– Similar to the UM Church.
- Local Church Organizational Structure – Flexible structures allowed to accomplish the necessary administrative tasks.
- Connectional Funding (Apportionments)– 1.5 percent of local church income for general church work, 5-10 percent for annual conference, including the bishop’s salary and expenses.
- Trust Clause– Local church owns its property (no trust clause). Local churches with pension liability would remain liable if the church disaffiliates.
- Local Church Disaffiliation– Would allow for involuntary disaffiliation if necessary for churches teaching doctrines or engaging in practices contrary to the GM Book of Doctrines and Discipline. Voluntary disaffiliation possible by majority vote of the congregation. No payments required, except pension liabilities where applicable, secured by a lien on the property.
- Certified Laity in Ministry – Combines all types into one category called certified lay ministers, who can specialize to serve in any of the previous areas (e.g., lay speakers, lay servants, deaconesses, etc.).
- Orders of Ministry – Order of deacon contains both permanent deacons and those going on to elder’s orders.
- Length of Candidacy for Ordained Ministry– Six months to three years.
- Educational Requirements for Deacons– Five or six prescribed courses before ordination and four or five courses thereafter.
- Educational Requirements for Elders – Six prescribed courses before ordination and four courses thereafter.
- Licensed Local Pastors (non-ordained)– Grandfathered in, but transitioned to ordained Deacon or Elder.
- Funding for Theological Education– Theological Education Fund to make loans to students that are forgivable (20 percent for each year of service to the church).
- Retirement for Bishops and Clergy– No mandatory retirement, clergy may choose senior status. Senior clergy not under appointment are annual conference members with voice and vote for seven years. Thereafter, members with voice only.
- Election and Assignment of Bishops– Election process to be determined. Term limits envisioned, perhaps twelve years. Current UM bishops who join the GM Church will continue to serve. Annual conferences without a bishop would have a president pro tempore assigned for the transitional period.
- Appointment Process– Same as UM Church, with enhanced consultation with clergy and local church. Bishops must give a written rationale for appointing a pastor against the wishes of the congregation. Current appointments maintained where possible during transition.
- Guaranteed Appointment– No guaranteed appointment. Bishop must give written rationale for not appointing a clergyperson.
- General Church Governance– Transitional Leadership Council serves as the governing body until the convening General Conference with globally elected delegates.
- General Church Agencies– None mandated. Five transitional commissions suggested (compared with 15 UM agencies).
- Jurisdictions or Central Conferences– Optional, may or may not be formed in a particular area.
- Adaptability of the Discipline– Provisions of the Book of Doctrines and Discipline would apply equally to all geographic areas of the church unless specified. This implies provisions will be more general and consider the global context before being adopted.
- Annual Conference Agencies– Six agencies required, with additional ones at the discretion of the annual conference (compared with 25+ in the UM Church).
- Clergy Accountability– Similar to the UM Church complaint process, with stricter timelines and less discretion in dismissing complaints. Laity would be voting members of committee on investigation.
- Bishops’ Accountability– Accountable to Transitional Leadership Committee, global committee on investigation, and global trial court if needed. Laity would be voting members of the committee on investigation.
- Many more details, as well as the WCA’s proposals following the transitional period, can be found in the chart linked above.
My wife is a marriage and family therapist. One of her favorite questions to provoke dialog is, “How are things changing and how are they remaining the same?” That question is a fitting one to ask, as we head into a key few years of decision-making ahead. Hopefully, this chart can help provide some of the answers.
Thomas Lambrecht is a United Methodist clergyperson and the vice president of Good News.
